My Gametag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-1237880446699824752018-03-15T12:23:00-04:00TypePadIf I had the choice to do it all over againtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c9588552970b2018-03-15T12:23:00-04:002018-03-15T12:23:00-04:00[ 1 min read ] If I had the choice to do it all over again I wouldn’t choose it but what can I do now … I can’t quit it. Objectively you can. But it scares the hell out of you, so you can’t. Objectively you can. But you’ve...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 1 min read ]

If I had the choice to do it all over again I wouldn’t choose it but what can I do now … I can’t quit it.

Objectively you can. But it scares the hell out of you, so you can’t.

Objectively you can. But you’ve told yourself that you can’t (because that’s the mindset of the majority of people — one life, one career), and you believed it, so you can’t.

Objectively you can. But you’ve told yourself that it’s too late, not worth it, so you can’t.

Objectively you can. But you don’t want to leave your current comfort zone (even if it sucks it is still a comfort zone — you know it well), so you can’t.

Why do you choose to do it to yourself?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c9583999970b2018-03-14T11:43:23-04:002018-03-14T11:43:23-04:00[ 1 min read ] I’m in my 40s / 50s so it no longer makes sense to change my career. Obviously it’s too late. I missed the time when it still made sense. And now, what is the point now? I’m approaching the retirement age. Retirement isn’t mandatory. It’s...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 1 min read ]

I’m in my 40s / 50s so it no longer makes sense to change my career. Obviously it’s too late. I missed the time when it still made sense. And now, what is the point now? I’m approaching the retirement age.

Retirement isn’t mandatory. It’s just an idea, something people invented.

If it is our invention we can ignore it.

In other words

Who told you that you can’t ignore this rule that people retire at certain age?

Probably nobody. You assume that it’s what you’ll do, just like everybody else.

Who told you that you are too old to uncover passion in life?

Probably people who have the same belief, that in one’s 40s / 50s it’s already too late as people retire in their 60s. What else can they tell you?

Why do you choose to believe that you’ll always want to retire?

Why do you choose to believe that work will always be this shitty part of your life?

Why do you choose to believe that you’ll never be able to love your work?

Why do you choose to be like everybody else (mindlessly mimic others)?

Why do you choose to believe that you are not capable of being extraordinary?

Why do you choose to believe that you are powerless?

Why do you choose to believe that life is just the way it is (that your parents and other adults were right when they told you how fucked-up adult life is)?

Why do you choose to do it to yourself?

Why?

Here I undermine the clichés about parental love (and tell young adults how to guard their interests and dreams)tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2e19b62970c2018-03-11T15:32:12-04:002018-03-11T15:32:12-04:00[ 4 min read ] There is one very important thing all young people should realize. The reason parents don’t care about their children’s dreams and want to force certain choices on them is always the same. They want a peace of mind and a feeling that they did their...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 4 min read ]

There is one very important thing all young people should realize.

The reason parents don’t care about their children’s dreams and want to force certain choices on them is always the same. They want a peace of mind and a feeling that they did their job well as parents. They love their children (all parents whose brains aren’t damaged do) but they also have their own interests behind which are their needs and they want those needs satisfied.

And there is nothing bad about that, we all want our needs satisfied — it’s very human. But parents have this real (but also assumed) position of power and most of them use it to further their cause. Thus the relation between parents and children is very one-sided. It is very one-sided but the word ‘love’ is on parents’ lips 24/7 365 (it is also on the lips of almost every single adult family member — aunt, uncle, grandmother, etc., who have long forgotten what is it like to be a child, teenager, young adult).

So parents and other adult family members use the word ‘love’ all the time in order to convince those young people (those rookies — as they view them) that parents want only the best for their children and that, though it is painful now, there’ll come the time when those children will understand and even thank their parents for what they did. That’s the clichés we all hear left and right.

No wonder young adults get upset. Every adult tells them how much their parents love them and how they do everything for them, and how they want only the best for their children and would never hurt their children, etc.

And it’s true. But nobody will tell those young adults that besides it there are other things which are also true. Like the fact that parents have interests of their own and that those interests get all the attention while children’s needs are being marginalized or even ignored with the explanation that those young adults don’t know what is best for them (that they’re too young and thus not competent enough to know it).

And so parents proclaim themselves Batmans who will save Gotham (their beloved children) from a tragedy. How will they do it? By telling those young adults exactly what they should do in order to have a good life. Because they believe that they know the magic formula.

And what are parents’ needs (interests)?

They don’t want to see how their children struggle, even if the children would welcome struggle. They want to have a peace of mind, a reason to brag among other parents and family members and the feeling that they did a fantastic job as parents.

None of those parents hate their children. They only push their interests.

So my advice to all young adults would be treat it as a negotiation. Because that’s precisely what it is. It is often uneven and there are dirty tricks, but that’s how most people in this world go about satisfying their needs. If you’ll look at most negotiations that happen each day (those small every-day negotiations between ordinary people, not the multimillion dollar negotiations between companies and countries) you’ll see very few negotiations in which both sides care about the other side — those are exceptions to the rule.

If we’ll look at it from this perspective we’ll realize that our parents don’t do anything peculiar/ bad. Heck, this experience is what you can also expect when dealing with other people you’ll meet. People care about their needs being met (that’s true everywhere). Even if they’re very helpful they meet some need of their own.

Young people lose in those negotiations because they don’t realize that they negotiate. They’ve been brainwashed from childhood that parents only have their children’s needs on their minds. Baloney! They have their own needs and those needs are top of their mind. That’s the truth which doesn’t sound good to people so that’s not what we hear all the time. As a matter of fact we almost never hear it. We hear things which sound nice to us (especially they sound nice to all parents) that we love our children the most and that their interests are top of our mind.

Doesn’t it sound nice? It just gives you such a nice feeling (that you’re not selfish). That you do it all for someone else. That you do it for someone you love more than anything in this world. Don’t we love this feeling?

So we almost never ponder, we never allow this thought that it could be about our needs as parents. But it is very much about our needs.

Don’t expect that people will care about your needs more than they care about their needs. If you want something you will have to negotiate with people. Otherwise you have no prayer. You’ll lose every time.

Want something? Don’t wait until others will give it to you.

How to kick ass in negotiations with your controlling parentstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c9570fad970b2018-03-10T12:06:41-05:002018-03-10T12:06:41-05:00[ 2 min read ] If you’re a young adult and want to realize your dream and your controlling parents use their dirty tricks (threats, ultimatums, guilt-tripping) in order to force you into compliance (because they have a “better” plan) neutralize those by saying: You can say anything you want...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 2 min read ]

If you’re a young adult and want to realize your dream and your controlling parents use their dirty tricks (threats, ultimatums, guilt-tripping) in order to force you into compliance (because they have a “better” plan) neutralize those by saying:

You can say anything you want or use any threat you want. You can even follow through on those threats. If that’s how you want to play it, so be it. But I won’t let you control or own my life.

My decision is final in that sense that nothing you say or do can intimidate me into compliance.

I know what I want and that’s my decision. That’s my life and I’m entitled to my own decisions.

I guess I understand you. I don’t know how I would behave if I was in your shoes.

I hope that my desire to become a confident and independent human being will not destroy what we’ve built as this family for the last 18/ 20/ 25 years. Because that’s nature and I can’t not have this urge to go and explore. I bet at my age you were much like I’m now.

I appreciate the fact that you want to help me. It means a lot to me, I’ll never forget how much you helped me and I love you for that.

Now shut up and watch they jaws drop and how they can’t believe their ears, and how they wish they could find words but can’t.

They’re in shock so it’s possible that they’ll tell you again that they’re not going to talk/ negotiate with you. That’s perfectly OK because they’re not ready - they need time to wholly comprehend the situation and realize what has just happened.

Calmly restate to them that you made your decision and that it is precisely what you’ll do whether they like it or not. Whether they will follow through on their threats or not. They need to understand that power moves will not work with someone like you. And without their power moves they will have no other mechanism to control your life.

Of course they can always lock you up in the basement but my hope is that they’re not crazy people. But if my assumption is wrong (actually they are crazy people), forget about giving this speech and run!

As a newcomer to the art scene you might need this. A lot!tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c9562d71970b2018-03-07T09:58:00-05:002018-03-07T09:58:00-05:00[ 3 min read ] I’m a newcomer to the art scene. I appear rather late, like Henri Rousseau. But, what the heck! Like Rousseau, I believe I can do it, I believe I have what it takes, I want to do it, and will do it. Who can stop...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 3 min read ]

I’m a newcomer to the art scene. I appear rather late, like Henri Rousseau. But, what the heck!

Like Rousseau, I believe I can do it, I believe I have what it takes, I want to do it, and will do it.

Who can stop me? My death certainly could.

Other artists, art critics? If I were them I wouldn’t even try to stop me.

Why?

Because I don’t care if what I’ll do will qualify as art according to their definition of this word. I don’t care if I’ll be called an ‘artist’, if they’ll allow me.

Art critics and the whole art scene can’t stop me. They can only tell me I’m not an artist and what I do is not art.

Fine. I’m not an artist according to your narrow definition, the one you espoused.

But you know what, I’ll do you a favor. I’ll make it super easy for you. I will not contest what you’ll say about me and my work. I will not argue that your definition isn’t the only right definition, or that I (and other people) can have a different one. I will be one of your favorite human beings on earth. I’ll accept your point of view and tell you that you are right.

You are right. I’m not an artist and what I do is not art.

But since I will do it anyway it will be something. And it will matter anyway. Whether you like it or not. The only things that don’t matter are the things which will never see the light of the day because people chose not to do them.

Let’s say those will not be art projects and I’m not an aspiring artist who will have a debut on the art scene.

I will do some projects I came up with and that’s all. You don’t even have to pay attention. It’s not for you (I mean the art establishment). I’m not trying to please anybody from the establishment. I’m not trying to enter the field of art, nor am I trying to make a name for myself in the art world. I will do a couple of projects which include appearing before the public and attempting to convey some kind of a message to those people. To all those who will want to watch.

Is this art? Of course, it depends on the definition of art. Honestly I don’t care if it is or isn’t. It’s just a matter of interpretation. I have one, you have one, everyone has one. So I will definitely not cry if art critics will tell me that what I do is not art and that I am not an artist. I’m not an artist and what I do is not art. But guess what? One thing nobody will be able to deny. That I fucking did it and someone saw it and that it influenced him or her.

If you think you can stop me, try. But I’m tellin ya, you’ll fucking lose and I’ll make fun of you and I’ll have a bunch of people who will laugh with me! Do you really want this?

Clichés in the art world: Setting Cezanne straighttag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2de6edc970c2018-02-28T14:11:15-05:002018-02-28T14:11:15-05:00[ 2 min read ] Yesterday I wrote about and debunked the myth that an artist can be ahead of her time. I said that art critics particularly like this phrase and use it as their favorite explanation why they or their older or already dead colleagues (their predecessors), or...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 2 min read ]

Yesterday I wrote about and debunked the myth that an artist can be ahead of her time. I said that art critics particularly like this phrase and use it as their favorite explanation why they or their older or already dead colleagues (their predecessors), or more broadly, why the whole society didn’t revere, or even openly criticized the work of such and such an artist in the past (saying that this person sucks and that what he o she does can’t even be called art, etc.), and then, out of a sudden we proclaimed this person a genius or the greatest artist of her time.

In order to explain this lack of consistency they say that such and such an artist was ‘ahead of her time’. And this pretty much solves the problem. More about it in my yesterday’s post.

But art critics and ordinary people who repeated those “wisdoms” after them aren’t the only people whose logic was (is) screwed up and with whom this cliché nevertheless stuck (because it offered a “convincing” or rather convenient explanation).

Many artists did that too. Assuming that what I learned about Paul Cezanne from a documentary on him which I saw yesterday is true about him (and I guess we all need to assume that certain information about those historic figures is true — otherwise studying them and any attempt at providing a commentary would become impossible) he used to say to young people who came to visit him when he was already in his late 50s / early 60s that he came too early, that he should have come along in their time, that he’s a primitive of a new art.

It seems to me that Cezanne and artists who expressed a similar sentiment did it in order to cope with their disappointment. As living artists they weren’t successful or they weren’t as successful as they hoped to be), and they invented a nice little story (like we all often do) according to which they would be a hit had they been born 30 years later. Baloney! There is no guarantee. More about it in my yesterday’s post.

What’s interesting about those stories which we invent in order to cope with our disappointment is that they rarely hold water. And in Cezanne’s case the story doesn’t hold water at all. I guess it served its purpose. I would even wish him that, if that’s the method he found plausible, that is. I guess it soothed him, but if it did, it’s clear to me that he told himself a convenient lie and believed it (didn’t notice how screwed up the logic behind it was).

The importance of being patienttag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01bb09f6b570970d2018-02-26T11:36:54-05:002018-02-26T11:36:54-05:00[ 4 min read ] I think the advice You have time, be patient! is both wise and ridiculous. It’s wise because we need to be patient in our lives. We shouldn’t assume that we will be able to figure it all out, figure ourselves out, in our late teenage...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 4 min read ]

I think the advice You have time, be patient! is both wise and ridiculous.

It’s wise because we need to be patient in our lives. We shouldn’t assume that we will be able to figure it all out, figure ourselves out, in our late teenage years or early 20s. Of course that’s what our families always want and expect (because they will be able to relax — erroneously thinking that’s we’re set for life, and probably very easy and nice one), but it’s a ridiculous expectation.

Those who assumed that they figured themselves out (because they’ve picked their college major) will probably be disappointed. Suddenly, in their 30s or 40s they might realize that they’re not what they thought they are. And it will be a source of a great anxiety. Immediately they become very vulnerable. They’re very likely to have all sorts of dangerous and very disturbing thoughts. They’re very likely to conclude that they’ve wasted all this time and that they’ll never be able to get it back. They will whine.

So it’s probably better to assume that figuring yourself out may take you your entire life and make peace with it. Because that’s a much better way to think about our lives. It frees us from this expectation and entitlement to figure ourselves out early in life.

As young adults we erroneously equate the choice of our career with figuring ourselves out. It’s a terrible mistake. It’s a wishful thinking. We wish it was this way, but it’s not.

Self-discovery takes time. You can’t do it sitting with your parents in your living room and pondering, brainstorming options, going through a menu of traditional (and non-traditional) careers. You can’t do it this way.

It’s a rarity that someone discovers something as a child and it clicks and they will be able to do it their entire lives. It’s an exception to the rule. And we want to make a rule out of this exception. Because we aren’t patient. Because we see our friend who has a fantastic life (although we know little about this “fantastic” life).

But it can also be viewed as a ridiculous statement.

We don’t know if we have time. Maybe we don’t. Maybe we will die in a car crash next year or of cancer in our early 30s. Who knows? We can’t rule it out. It’s a possibility. People who drive safely die in car crashes and people who have a healthy lifestyle die of cancer. Those things happen. And that’s just two examples of infinity of bad scenarios.

So how should we interpret this advice?

Should we live our lives thinking that we will reap the rewards later? What if there will be no later? It’s totally possible.

We would be devastated if we knew that death will get us soon (it being certain), and that up until this moment we’ve been hoping that being patient will one day pay off. We took this advice, we were patient as fuck, and what? Maybe we were only months or weeks, heck maybe even only days from having our breakthrough moment? Who knows? And we are going to die? Now?! Fuck, couldn’t we have died 10 years ago? We wound’t have struggled for so many years and made so many sacrifices.

Be patient, you have time!

For what? For what do I have time? Success? Money? Fame? Celebrity lifestyle? Happiness? It seems to me that those are the very things we apparently can wait for in our lives according to this advice.

But will anybody guarantee it? Will anybody put money where his / her mouth is?

Nobody will guarantee that I won’t die within the next 5 or 10 years. So how come they tell me that I have time? Are they fucking prophets? Cheaters? They’re having the time of their lives and post their Iife advice on Instagram, but what do they know about the future? Not much, just like myself.

Be patient, you have time is thus a very troublesome piece of life advice.

What if being patient is not the answer?

What if there is a better way of thinking about your life? Can we improve on someone else’s idea? Totally! Can we improve on an idea / thought of a person who is very successful (both in a conventional sense but also according to their own definition), or even a guru / or was proclaimed a genius? Totally!

But we should also be thankful that this person shared his / her opinion, idea, thought because it provided an inspiration.

In my opinion being patient can make our lives miserable too. If you’re patient it means that you wait for something and you hope that it will happen one day. What if you’ll die before it happens (still as a young person, or as a middle-aged person)? What if you’ll be in your 90s, on your deathbed, and it didn’t happen.

It seems to me that the love of the process is the only guarantee that you will not be bitter and full of regrets. If you love the process the process is the reward. You don’t wait for awards, accolades, recognition, applause, celebrity status, fame, in other words for those indications of your success. None if it matters to you. You don’t wait for them because being able to do what you loved all those years (even if it lasted only a short time), or searching for it, chasing after your dreams, trusting yourself and your competence to make your own life choices, and being patient with yourself (that’s the point I guess — being patient with yourself) is the ultimate success.

The process is the only thing that matters. Be patient with yourself. Meaning don’t expect that your decisions should always be fantastic, expect fuckups (allow yourself to have them), don’t beat yourself up when your decision turned out to be unfortunate, and never lose faith in your competence to make your own life choices.

Calling yourself an amateur is a fear-based decisiontag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2da4538970c2018-02-14T11:18:13-05:002018-02-14T11:18:13-05:00[ 2 min read ] Don’t call yourself an amateur photographer on your Instagram profile if you take photos every day but that’s not something you earn money with. Maybe if you’re good at it it’s just a matter of your mindset (different from the one you have right now)...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 2 min read ]

Don’t call yourself an amateur photographer on your Instagram profile if you take photos every day but that’s not something you earn money with.

Maybe if you’re good at it it’s just a matter of your mindset (different from the one you have right now) and time, and you will be able to do it as your profession? That’s all possible but only if you don’t limit the scope of it by introducing yourself as an amateur photographer.

Amateur is a person who engages say in art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession and if that’s your belief about yourself do you think you can switch to that as your career?

It is also being used to describe a person lacking the skills of a professional. So it is like saying I’m not as good at it as the pros are. And that’s, of course, also a limiting belief.

Get rid of it! Call yourself a writer, painter, singer, musician, photographer, etc. Never an amateur writer, painter, singer, musician, photographer, etc. Especially when you feel strong at this thing (believe you’re good at it) and people like what you do.

The advantage of calling yourself an amateur to many people is that you’re not expected to prove yourself to anybody (but you can also decide that you don’t want to do it without calling yourself an amateur), that you are allowed to have shortcomings / lack skills, or that you can always say that you could be better if you committed to this thing.

It’s an excuse most people use out of their fear of telling other people that it’s something they do for real (something more than a mere hobby, something they might consider their main occupation). As long as they use the word ‘amateur’ they’re safe. People probably won’t even pay attention. As soon as they switch to being more than an amateur they become vulnerable.

There really is no other reason to include the word ‘amateur’ in your bio. It’s a fear based decision.

Or even better, don’t compete with them (or any other icons or legends, for that matter), just believe in yourself and start doing the things which you feel excited about or drawn to, and yet can’t because you (like the overwhelming majority of people) feel intimidated by the names and the achievements of those who preceded you.

Start!

Write something yourself!

Paint something yourself!

Draw something yourself!

Make something yourself!

Invent something yourself!

Do something yourself!

And lastly, f*ck me.

Note that I separated myself from those great masters so that no one can accuse me of trying to associate my name with their names and potentially claim that I have their (or comparable) wits. They somehow already know I don’t. And I won’t spend my life trying to prove anybody wrong, or prove myself to anybody. I don’t have time for this nonsense, this pitiful pursuit. I’m in the business of creating a body of work as vast as possible in whatever time I have, not proving naysayers wrong, or proving myself to people who assumed that I don’t have it in me.

How about that?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c94d3976970b2018-02-05T17:45:46-05:002018-02-05T17:47:39-05:00[ 1 min read ] How about working first wherever you can (and like), even if it’s not in “your” field (doing things even people without college education could), instead of trying to figure out everything in your early 20s before you get to work (because that’s the most common...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 1 min read ]

How about working first wherever you can (and like), even if it’s not in “your” field (doing things even people without college education could), instead of trying to figure out everything in your early 20s before you get to work (because that’s the most common expectation in our society).

How about not running into college debt?

How about not wasting your time and energy to get a law school diploma , if you know that you don’t want to be a lawyer?

How about not hating college years, because you studied something which doesn’t excite you?

How about living frugally (not buying all this shit most people end up buying, because everyone else also buys it)?

How about not having something to fall back on? Those who have something to fall back on usually end up in those professions anyway, because after a year or two without any sign of conventional success those who told them that they need something to fall back on, will tell them “Didn’t we tell you?”.

How about having a life philosophy of always taking risks (especially if you consider that there are almost no things which are truly 100% risk free)?

On making important life decisionstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c94b710f970b2018-01-31T15:38:36-05:002018-01-31T15:38:36-05:00[ 1 min read ] A young guy says to an older man “Hey, how did you get so successful?” “By making good decisions,” the older man answers. “How did you learn to make good decisions?” “From experience,” the older man says “Well, how did you get the experience?” The...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 1 min read ]

A young guy says to an older man “Hey, how did you get so successful?”

“By making good decisions,” the older man answers.

“How did you learn to make good decisions?”

“From experience,” the older man says

“Well, how did you get the experience?”

The older man looks at the young man and says “By making bad decisions”.

Make a lot of decisions. Your own decisions.

Listen to your gut feeling/ trust your decisions and choices. Which also means that you shouldn’t seek other people’s approval for your plans. Neither you should ask for their advice.

If you rely on other people’s suggestions/ recommendations, if, instead of relying on your own judgment/ gut feeling, you seek other people’s advice, you’ll become better at avoiding making decisions.

Career recommendations work the same way movie or book recommendationstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c94ab035970b2018-01-30T10:49:21-05:002018-01-30T10:49:21-05:00[ 3 min read ] Career recommendations are worthless because there is zero guarantee that something which worked for person A will also work for person B. They’re like movie or book recommendations - we usually pay attention to book or movie ratings, how many people read the book or...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 3 min read ]

Career recommendations are worthless because there is zero guarantee that something which worked for person A will also work for person B.

They’re like movie or book recommendations - we usually pay attention to book or movie ratings, how many people read the book or went to see the movie, and to the kind of reviews they left.

We trust that a ratio of, say, 1 to 10 - one bad review for every 10 good reviews, means that the book/ movie is good and that there is a good chance we will also like it. And in reverse, that one good review for every 10 bad reviews means that the book/ movie is bad and that there is a good chance we will also dislike it. We assume that we will be like those 10 people and unlike the one sucker or weirdo.

We treat it as something that is almost certain when it’s not.

Why not assume that you will be like the one sucker or weirdo? Most people aren’t likely to assume that they will be like the one sucker or weirdo, because we don’t want to be suckers and weirdos.

We want to be in the “normal” majority. We assume that the majority is never this sucker or weirdo. Crazy are those who are different (who deviate from the norm/ who are unlike the majority).

That’s why the thing called ‘social proof’ works so well. Yielding to it may have dire consequences for us, but that’s a different story altogether - we can’t deny that it works in that people want to know what the majority picked and trust that it will work for them too (although they may lack data whether those who picked it / went to see that movie / bought that book were glad they did it or not - “Over 1 million copies sold”, or “Instant international bestseller” is usually what the majority of people pay attention to and what they will base their decision on).

Of course, our expectations “help” in some way too. Help us like what the majority liked. When we expect that something will be good we’re a bit more likely to end up having such opinion. That’s why it’s better to tell people “Try our delicious coffee” or “Try Oslo’s favorite coffee” instead of just “Try our coffee” - the only instance when it’s not advisable is when your coffee smells or tastes of something coffee in general should not smell or taste of according to most people’s conviction (like gasoline, French fries, for example).

But even when we expect something to be good, there is still this chance that we will find it to be bad. We won’t like the feeling because, clearly, it will mean that something must be wrong with us (so many people liked the book / movie and we didn’t). But if we’ll tell nobody, maybe they won’t find out.

Most people like to have the same opinion the majority of people have and feel uncomfortable when they’re in the minority. That’s how we operate. So we pray that our preferences will be those of the majority, or that at least we will find some small group of people just like us. Thus leaving the first review which is unlike the rest of reviews, being this pioneer, takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of courage to speak your truth/ to be authentic.

We don’t need anyone’s advice or recommendation. Especially when it comes to finding the best career for ourselves.

The "smartest people" on earthtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2d37c87970c2018-01-25T15:00:25-05:002018-01-25T15:19:46-05:00[ 8 min read ] I say things which others before me said. Like Seth Godin or Gary Vaynerchuk, or Steven Pressfield. How do I now it? I've read their books, I watched their videos on YouTube, I read their articles or blog posts, or interviews with them. Of course...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 8 min read ]

I say things which others before me said. Like Seth Godin or Gary Vaynerchuk, or Steven Pressfield.

How do I now it? I've read their books, I watched their videos on YouTube, I read their articles or blog posts, or interviews with them. Of course I say similar things but differently. I put my spin on the same problems they touched in the past.

I also say and write things I never read or heard before. My ego might lead me to the conclusion that I might be the first person who ever wrote it, shared this idea, thought or theory. But, of course, this conclusion might be also wrong. Why? Because I will never be able to read all the books that were published in the world, all the articles, all the blog posts, or watch all the YouTube videos with talks, rants, interviews. No matter how hard I’d try I’ll never be able to verify if what I am about to say or write was said or written before by somebody and if I’m not “repeating" after them. And there is also this possibility that I might have heard or read something years before that stayed in my head and I don’t even realize that I said something similar to what someone in the past said.

I might write something and people could accuse me of stealing from someone who said a similar thing in the past, but that’s not always true. It is also possible that I connected the dots in the same way someone else did before me, using similar data points which we gathered from the same or different sources and I might never have even heard of this person and his or her work. So not everything we say or write that sounds familiar / similar to something someone else said or wrote is the past must be a theft.

It is impossible to verify such thing. It’s too big of a task. Even if I spent my entire life consuming content produced by others 24/7 365, looking for an answer to the question Is my idea original? I could never be 100% sure that nobody in the whole world never said that before.

Pondering if it’s worth it to share your idea, thought, or theory (out of this worry that someone else might have already published it before you) is a bad idea and approach to being a creative. It is a losing proposition. You won’t accomplish much this way.

Gary Vaynerchuk once said that were it not for the fact that he never reads anything which was written by another human being (probably a mild exaggeration) he would have probably never produced most of his YouTube videos and blog posts where he rants about various topics. He admitted that knowing that there was somebody out there who said similar things / shared a similar point of view before could have easily stopped him from producing his content. Thus he forever stayed true to this approach, which means that he doesn’t care if what he is about to publish on his blog or YouTube channel was also published by someone else in the past. If he allowed himself to be crippled by the thought that someone somewhere might have already said that, he would probably never say 99% of what he said.

What’s important, writing and sharing your stuff (regardless of whether someone had this idea, thought, theory before) usually leads to the birth of new thoughts, ideas and theories in your head. And there is a chance that those new thoughts, ideas and theories might have never been shared before. And there is also a possibility (which borders on certainty) that without having written and published your unoriginal content you might never come up with those new thoughts, ideas and theories. Almost everything stems from something else.

Just think about it. Should I be crippled and shut up only because I might say something Confucius said 2500 years earlier? How many people today read Confucius’s works? But they might read mine.

Should I be crippled by that? Should I stop because someone might tell me that my ideas, thoughts, theories are not new, that I copied them, that I am a phony, that I stole it from someone else?

And who will tell me this? People who never share anything. So should I be intimidated by their stingy comments and ridiculous expectations that all my thoughts, ideas should be 100% new and original? What does it even mean “original”?

What is an ‘original idea’? Not derived from something else? It’s futile trying to prove to others that we only used our own brain and that everything happened inside our own brain, with no outside influence or inspiration. Apart from the fact that we might never be able to do that, it’s very selfish and its purpose is to depreciate the contribution of others. We all get inspired all the time. Our brains are constantly looking for ways to connect the dots. That’s how they operate. Without this ability we wouldn’t be able to come up with any idea. So I’d go as far as saying that were it not for our brains’ ability to be inspired and connect and move around pieces of information (picked by them from the outside world) we would never be able to produce even a single idea.

Should I censor myself in order to please assholes who have unreasonable expectations? Should I only be allowed to publish my thoughts after I’ve read all that was written to date and checked if nobody had this thought before? Are you kidding me? If we all thought this way, nobody would ever publish anything.

What if I overestimate the reach of other authors (those who published similar things before me)? What if my article / book will be the only one that will land in the hands of a certain person and it will inspire him / her to think differently and what if that person didn’t know who Gary Vaynerchuk, Seth Godin or Steven Pressfield are? What if I’ll be the only author they’ll find online (accidentally).

What if my son or one of his colleagues would never learn who Gary Vaynerchuk, Seth Godin or Steven Pressfield are? What if my book will be the only unconventional thing they’ll stumble upon (for obvious reasons)?

What if I underestimate the potential impact my work can have on people? What if I let the fame of those who published their stuff before me intimidate me?

What if I am just as smart as Seth Godin or Gary Vaynerchuk, heck even Confucius or Socrates? Or even smarter? Is that impossible? Are they (were they) the only people who could produce great ideas, have great thoughts, develop new theories?

Let's consider the fantastic Greek philosophers for a minute. Are we all doomed to live in their shadow? Because they were first to notice and say something? What did they say? Were they some kind of Gods? Did they use other tools than the ones we have at our disposal? Were they breathing a special kind of air that allowed them to have ideas nobody besides them could (in the entire history)? Were they some special race of people that is now extinct? What is it about them? Why do we treat them and their ideas like they were semi-Gods? Like nobody could ever come up with the same idea, thought and say something as profound? Why do we allow this idolized God-like image of someone who lived hundreds or thousands of years before us stop us from sharing our thoughts and ideas? Why should we live in someone’s shadow and assume that only they could have written those magnificent works?

Why are we so intimidated by the fame of human beings who lived before us? Why schools teach us to revere them (learn their names and memorize the dates when they lived), instead of explaining to us that nothing those bearded men said couldn’t have been said by someone else, that they were people just like we are, that they were not those God-like figures (as most people like to think), whereas we are those small insignificant people, duly intimidated by their greatness? Steve Jobs was right - everything around you was made by people who were no smarter than you, and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things.

We also forget that today only a small fraction of people read those magnificent works of ancient philosophers. Why? Because they’re written more than two thousand years ago? And maybe most of us would prefer to read something by a contemporary person? Especially by someone who has the ability to say similar things but better? Oh my God, did I just say the word “better”? I must have offended people who believe (have been taught in school to believe) that no one today can even come close to achieving what those ancient thinkers achieved.

F*cking share your thoughts, ideas and theories and don’t be crippled by the same thoughts the overwhelming majority of our society has - that those great thinkers did something which is beyond anyone’s reach, that the only thing we small people can do is revere them and teach the next generations to also revere them. Like it was some kind of a miracle that such people ever walked this earth.

Of course they were great philosophers, and I don’t depreciate their work. I’m only saying that it’s weird to me that schools teach children to revere them, as if they were people cut from a different cloth, and that nobody tells us that our ideas, thoughts and theories can be just as good or even better. And again, not because we’re so f*cking fantastic, geniuses, but because we are also people just like them and if they had those thoughts and ideas, anybody can have them (had those ancient philosophers never been born, sooner or later someone else, someone with guts, would share similar revelations).

That’s why I advocate not putting those who had those brilliant ideas in the past on the pedestal and revering them like they were semi-Gods. It’s a bad habit. They weren’t smarter, they weren’t the only human beings who could ever say such thing / have such thoughts - they were first to think about and share them, write them down, and that’s probably all.

I say many things/ share many thoughts. Some of them resonate with a lot of people. Does it mean I’m a genius and nobody else could say it? Of course not. I’m not the only one with a brain and the ability to perceive and think.

I publish books under my name because I hope and strongly believe that they will earn me money that I will be able to use to buy food for me and my family (as all creatives do), but the fact that I publish them under my name doesn’t mean I am the smart one and others aren’t. Maybe it’s just a matter of how many hours you put in thus far and how many words you wrote - I believe it all comes down to this, that that is the factor, that people who'd dedicate a similar amount of time to think and write, and who wouldn’t be afraid or feel intimidated to speak up, would also have brilliant ideas, some of them would be the same as mine - yes I’ve just wrote that I’m capable of having brilliant ideas, just like the next person).

And that’s perfectly OK. I’m not auditioning / competing for the title of the greatest philosopher of all times. It is a wishful thinking that you are the greatest philosopher of all time, or among the greatest. If you had some brilliant ideas it only means that you put in those hours to read, think and write it all down and others didn’t - that’s probably the most significant variable).

We’re all smart, so stop teaching us that we should revere Greek philosophers and other great thinkers from the past like they were some special human race. They weren’t. Teach us not be intimidated by anyone’s greatness (past and present) and to share our thoughts, ideas and theories. Because we are all capable of producing great ideas, provided we’re not too scared and / or intimidated by the greatness of those who walked this earth before us.

Magic bullets and shortcutstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01bb09ec1e9a970d2018-01-24T16:28:40-05:002018-01-24T16:28:40-05:00[ 4 min read ] If you’re Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated you are immediately a smarter person than you were before. Actually it's safe to say that you are super smart. Everyone would agree that being Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated carries with itself an aura of...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 4 min read ]

If you’re Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated you are immediately a smarter person than you were before. Actually it's safe to say that you are super smart.

Everyone would agree that being Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated carries with itself an aura of being a super smart person. Having a degree from one of those (and similar) institutions makes you a smarter person - in your own eyes, and in the eyes of other people.

The overwhelming majority of people strongly believe that having been accepted by those schools and graduating from them is a sure way of telling who is and who isn’t super smart.

Which, in reverse, often leads to the conclusion that having been rejected by those institutions (or never having been even close to graduating from those institutions) means you aren’t that smart. That you aren’t the super smart kid. That your potential as a human being is limited and that you will most likely never amount to great things in your life.

If you aren’t that smart why bother trying accomplish big things in your life? If you aren’t that smart why fool yourself that you are capable of great things? Why aspire to be great? Why dream big? Isn’t it better to have moderate aspirations (in order to avoid disappointment)?

If you are in your late 20s or in your 30s and aren’t Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated chances are you will never be Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated.

But what if this notion in our society that only people who have graduated from those renown institutions are super smart is simply bullshit?

Can't a person who is passionate about a certain subject and who is self-educated be on par with those who hold those diplomas from places like Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge?

Of course she can! Heck, who said that this person can’t be even better than those who studied in the best schools in the world? She totally can!

It’s an erroneous assumption that all people who are Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated are automatically super smart and that their skills are unparalleled in the market, that nothing else in the world will allow you to compete with those characters.

Quite obviously, that’s not what the people hired by those institutions and who study or studied there want to believe, so they will laugh such argument off.

The really hard part is that almost nobody would consider it possible. Collectively we've learned to rely almost entirely on a good name of the school we went to. We’ve come to believe that the good name of the school is what will make us successful. And quite obviously those schools have learned to benefit from this mindset.

Most people don’t believe in themselves, they believe in the name of the school they picked. And it’s very sad.

Most people who lack the means that would allow them to go to the best schools in town, are quick to conclude that they will not be able to achieve what the “smarter" rich kids will be able to accomplish in their lives. Convinced by what they've been always told by people (who represent this most common mindset, including their parents / teachers) they quickly conclude that they can’t achieve great things in their lives and they give up on themselves. They settle for mediocrity. Why? Because with the kind of education they got they will never become like those Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated kids.

The mere fact that it is unthinkable to most of us that a person who is passionate and self-taught could compete with those who graduated from the most renowned institutions in the world doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

It’s a mistake to assume that only being able to say about ourselves I am Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated allows you to do great things in life/ believe that you possess a unique knowledge/ or are very smart.

That’s simply not true. It’s a lie that is being perpetuated in the society because most of us believe in magic bullets and shortcuts. Yes, shortcuts! Going to Harvard so that from now on you will be able to use it as the most important piece of information about yourself is a shortcut. Sad that it works with most people. But the mere fact that it works with most people (because they also suck shit and believe in magic bullets and shortcuts) doesn’t mean you are this super smart person. It could mean only that you believe in magic bullets and shortcuts and that in your 20s you or your parents were able to afford it. It only makes people super smart in their own eyes and in the eyes of others (because we’ve come to rely so much on those magic bullets and shortcuts). It doesn’t make you objectively super smart. Using it as the most important piece of information about you is nothing short of being ludicrous if you think about it.

Only because a system emerged in which both employees and employers (and the society in general) believe that the name of the institution where you got your degree is an indicator of your smartness and superiority in skills, knowledge and everything doesn’t mean it is an objective truth. It’s still only a belief.

That we as a society aren’t ready to assume (accept the possibility) that someone without those fantastic credentials could be just as good as someone who went to Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge (in the era of the internet and planes!), or even better, doesn’t mean it cannot happen. And that’s the message I want to send to all those who aren’t Stanford/ Harvard/ Yale/ Oxford/ Cambridge educated.

Don’t give up on yourself, don’t give up on your big dreams only because you didn’t go to one of the best schools in your town. It’s not an indicator of who you are, what your place in the pecking order is, and what you are capable of. Forget about those magic bullets and shortcuts and get to work. Your work and your belief in yourself are the two most important ingredients of any success formula, not the name of the school you went to.

Steady job, financial stability, beautiful wife / handsome husband, two kids, a dog and a dream house. How do people live like that?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01bb09e64308970d2018-01-07T08:50:50-05:002018-01-07T08:50:50-05:00[ 1 min read ] Glenn Miller’s orchestra, they were doing some gigs somewhere. They can’t land where they’re supposed to land because it’s winter, snowy night. So they have to land, like, in this field and walk to the gig. They’re dressed in their suits, ready to play. They’re...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 1 min read ]

Glenn Miller’s orchestra, they were doing some gigs somewhere.

They can’t land where they’re supposed to land because it’s winter, snowy night. So they have to land, like, in this field and walk to the gig.

They’re dressed in their suits, ready to play. They’re carrying their instruments.

So they’re walking through the snow, and it’s wet and it’s slushy.

And in the distance they see this little house. And there’s lights on in the inside and this billow of smoke coming out of the chimney.

They go up to the house, and they look in the window, and in the window they see this family.

They’s a guy and his wife, and she’s beautiful. And there’s two kids. And they’re all sitting around the table. And they’re smiling, laughing, and eating. And there’s a fire in the fireplace.

These guys are standing in their suits, and they’re wet and they’re shivering, and holding their instruments.

And they’re watching this incredible Norman Rockwell scene.

This one guy turns to the other guy and goes, “How do people live like that?"

-

[Jerry Seinfeld’s favorite story about show business which he told Orny Adams, a struggling newcomer to stand-up comedy, complaining about his successful friends with wives, children and steady jobs.

Most parents will hate me for this! I would hate myself too if I had the same belief they have.tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2cd359a970c2018-01-06T11:51:16-05:002018-01-06T11:51:16-05:00[ 3 min read ] Why is it that almost all parents want their children to enter “practical” professions? Because they’re selfish and care more (or only) about their own needs being satisfied, rather than their children’s needs being satisfied. They want a peace of mind, have something to brag...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 3 min read ]

Why is it that almost all parents want their children to enter “practical” professions?

Because they’re selfish and care more (or only) about their own needs being satisfied, rather than their children’s needs being satisfied.

They want a peace of mind, have something to brag about, they don’t want the embarrassment, they care about the good name of their families, they care about what other people will say about them as parents, etc., because they make this classic mistake of assuming that how their children will fare in their lives says a lot about them and their parenting, or even about the entire family, and they fear that if their children will have no successes in the conventional sense they will be judged by people and that people will conclude that they sucked as parents.

They want to live and then die knowing that their children are safe (have stability, money, etc.). What’s wrong with wanting their children to be safe (have stability, money, etc.), in other words wanting the best for their children? At first glance, nothing is wrong with that (all parents think it’s a noble goal). They love their children and want the best for them. How could there be something wrong with that? But there is a catch. Who should define what ‘best’ is? Parents? Why? Why parents? Why not the child? It’s their child’s (by now adult child’s) life.

They want this and they want that. They, they, they. The best part? Almost no parents in this world realize how much it is about them. They use all those clichés about parental love, wanting the best for their children. How about wanting the best for themselves? Don’t they (the parents) want the best for themselves? Of course they want the best for themselves (the peace of mind, the success stories to share, etc.) and those needs usually and unfortunately go first. They’ve bought into a ludicrous idea of happiness in life and now they feel entitled to have a say in their adult! children’s lives.

And because they’re narrow minded and assume that only things which are tried and true can bring success.

And because they erroneously assume that the fact that they don’t know anybody who made money doing this thing means their children will fail. Which is absurd if you think about it! It only means that they don’t know anybody who made money doing this thing. Period. They know very little about the future (they only assume they know a lot), they can’t say with certainty what will happen if their children will choose a different path (that it will be a disaster, etc.). And if they claim that they can, if they are prophets (so freaking good at predicting what will happen) why don’t they tell those young people how to win the lottery? They know for sure that the path of an artist is a poor choice for people, so they should also be able to say what the winning numbers will be.

And because they erroneously assume that their children should be “successful” (attain this conventional success) right from the get go, and only a “practical”, well paying, prestigious career can guarantee this. That struggle is bad. That their role is to make sure their children will end up having a “practical” career.

And because they make this classic mistake of assuming that it will be on them to financially support their children for the rest of their (the parents’) lives. This is bullshit! Who said that it will be on them? They (parents) told this bullshit themselves. They invented this narrative which now forces them to avoid this scenario at all costs, and they don’t see how they should leave their adult! children to their own devices and let them take over. No, they need to be Batmans who will save f*cking Gotham from a tragedy. This is so pathetic.

Wake up, parents!

Architecture Adolf Hitler’s passion? My ass!tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b8d2cc42e0970c2018-01-03T07:37:44-05:002018-01-03T08:23:45-05:00[ 5 min read ] The examples of people who don’t understand passion but nevertheless talk about it, say that they have it, or that someone else has or had it, are so common that finding them is not a problem at all. People on Quora ask questions where they...Lukasz Laniecki

[ 5 min read ]

The examples of people who don’t understand passion but nevertheless talk about it, say that they have it, or that someone else has or had it, are so common that finding them is not a problem at all.

People on Quora ask questions where they claim to have passion and yet they desperately need guidance because they don’t know what they should do. Others say they have too many passions at once and they are confused - they also need guidance because they don’t know what they should do. Still others say they have passion for what they do, but they’re hesitant whether they should still do it.

There is this vast (almost infinite) reservoir of examples of people who speak about passion and don’t know what this word actually means. They think it’s a synonym for a strong interest, a fad, or a hobby. They don’t see any difference. For them it’s all the same. And this misunderstanding makes it even harder for people to find their passion as they can erroneously assume that they already have passion (more than one passion) when in reality they have no passion.

They assume that a strong interest or a short lived enthusiasm for a certain subject means they have passion and they’re confused - they see that passion could actually be ignored, or that you could decide that you will quit. And if this thing called passion is so weak, how it can drive anybody?

They start assuming that there must be something else beside passion, some special secret ingredient. That passion alone is not enough. And instead of realizing that their understanding (their definition - the most widespread definition) of the word ‘passion’ is screwed up, they look for and ask others for this secret ingredient hoping they will one day find it.

And from this vast reservoir of examples of people who speak about passion and don’t know what this word actually means I picked the one that shook me the most.

In their movie Hitler, a Career (original title Hitler - Eine Karriere) the producers said that Adolf Hitler had a passion for architecture.

Adolf Hitler himself once said

If I hadn’t become involved in politics, I would have been one of Germany’s finest architects.

My take, Germany’s finest architects have / had passion for architecture. Hitler, on the other hand, had only a strong interest for architecture and nothing more. Because I actually understand passion (and the differences between a passion, a strong interest, a fad and a pastime hobby), it’s obvious to me that Hitler couldn’t have had passion for architecture, whereas it’s not obvious to the producers of this documentary. He might have developed such passion if he hadn’t become involved in politics, but he didn’t develop it.

If Adolf Hitler had had passion for architecture today people would marvel at his creations, not wonder what possessed him, how he managed to trick and manipulate so many people (his own and the rest of the world), how was it possible that the whole world watched his rise to power and his madness and nobody stopped him sooner, etc.

If Adolf Hitler had had passion for architecture today his name wouldn’t be a synonym for total destruction, brute force, madness, lack of tolerance and smashing everything that stands in your way, no matter the costs, but for creation, hard work, beauty, unrelenting pursuit of making the world more pleasurable for all humanity.

If Adolf Hitler had had passion for architecture he would have been immersed in it 100% each day which means that he would have had no time left in which he could think how to deceive and invade other countries.

The thing is more and more young people on the brink of becoming adults have a new aspiration. Passion.

Passion is like cool new sneakers, or better, like the new iPhone - you absolutely need to have it. ASAP. Ideally before your high school peers have it, be the first in the entire class.

That’d be cool, wouldn’t it?

There is this new thing that popped up recently (everybody is talking about it - which means it is cool) and if you want to impress your high school peers that’s what you should get.

Some say that the current outpour of articles with the word ‘passion’ in them makes them wanna puke. They’re not dumb. They will not let a fad distract them. Eyes on the prize! Prize being a “practical” college degree - because that’s what their parents want, or because they’ve bought into this idea that a college degree will set them up for life. We need to keep a cool head, they’ll tell us.

Various career experts warn young people that they shouldn’t think about passion, or that following passion might not be the best idea / strategy for life. That nothing trumps being practical and learning a craft that is in demand. That there are no guarantees that passion will give them the life they want. That they know people who tried and failed, that there is a better way, etc.

What baffles me is how few of them (young adults and their parents and other career “experts” who want to help those young people, those rookies) actually know what they’re talking about / understand what passion is.

They talk about this thing or dream about it and nobody finds it useful to ask themselves whether or not they got it right. They assume they got it right (like we do most of the time) so there is no need to ask questions. Thus we can skip this step and immediately take the next one, which means we will decide on how we will approach the thing we assume we understand well.

It’s similar to getting married. Who would bother to ask what it is really about (what are the concrete benefits of being vs. not being married for two people who love each other)? Most people will skip this step and immediately take the next one - meaning whom will (should) I marry and / or when. Why ask questions? It is generally assumed that all people who love each other and want to form a family get married. So we kinda already know everything we need to know. Or that’s just what we assume we know (c’mon, it’s obvious to everyone - we don’t want to appear like we’re ignorant about obvious things, right?).

Meanwhile the myths about passion are plentiful and ubiquitous in our society (precisely because nobody wants to ask those questions). And nobody talks about them. I wanted to change that and wrote this book.

Buy this book from

Get a college degree or else…tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01bb09358d5e970d01b7c93fccdf970b2017-12-25T17:12:18-05:002017-12-25T17:12:18-05:00[ 2 min read ] Of course it’s easier to tell yourself (and others) that you were a dumb teenager / young person in his / her early 20s and you knew nothing about life and you made some dumb mistakes and now you need to pay for those mistakes....Lukasz Laniecki

[ 2 min read ]

Of course it’s easier to tell yourself (and others) that you were a dumb teenager / young person in his / her early 20s and you knew nothing about life and you made some dumb mistakes and now you need to pay for those mistakes. Don’t we all make mistakes as rookies? Won’t everybody listen and pity you?

Or, it’s easier to tell people that if your parents could have afforded to send you to college (or if the circumstances had been different when you were in your early 20s), things would be different now.

You (the 30, 40, 50, 60 year old you) are off the hook. You can’t turn back time, can you?

Again, that’s bullshit - a little ludicrous story in most people’s heads which helps them justify the fact that they don’t / didn’t try hard enough in their 30s, 40s, 50s, even 60s).

They’ve been brainwashed (by the previous generation of likeminded people) to believe that college degree is everything and that people have only this short time window in their late teenage years and early 20s and then it’s over, and they don’t even realize they can start something in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, heck even in their 70s or 80s if they have good health and their brains work properly.

So we have this huge army of able people who have given up on themselves in their mid-to late-20s (and who are unable to take 100% responsibility for their lives. They always wish they could turn back time - that’s their favorite excuse). And on the other side of the spectrum we have people who believe that only getting a college degree in their 20s saved them / gave them this better life (that were it not for their college degree their lives would suck shit), which means that the second group of people has the same mindset as the first, only they were lucky enough to have gotten their college degrees.

So they both serve to amplify the same bullshit message: Get a college degree or else…